No. For noisy data like this, you need to look at averages to make sense of it. Eg. see the quarterly averages, they show a growth from 45k to 65k transaction/day: http://i.imgur.com/XJs4V74.png (or see www.quandl.com/BCHAIN/NTRAN-Bitcoin-Number-of-Transactions and select "quarterly".)
Same reason why corporate financial reports are done on a quarterly basis. Or else there would be plenty of peaks and dips from week to week.
And if you scroll back to weekly you see any quarterly growth exists in one or two peaks pushing the quarterly numbers up then rapidly falling back down.
Realistically though we're both playing with figures to show the result we expect.
I've found plenty of merchants who accept it who have seen little to no revenue from it or shrinking revenues when they original saw some. Do you know of many merchants that are seeing increasing bitcoin customers and revenue?
Who do you think is more guilty of playing with figures: the one who looks at temporary peaks and dips, or the one who looks at quarterly averages to find the overall macro trend? ;)
I once compiled datapoints showing the growth of BitPay (ie. customers spending bitcoins on real goods and services from real merchants). You will find it interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7974197
One who uses short term spikes to make their long term data look better? We can(and have) gone back and forth on this a bunch.
That reply is actually to me in a previous discussion. As I said before Bitpay has known to do the exact same thing(use short term spikes) and attribute it to daily volume. They did it during the last holiday season along with Coinbase then both ended up deleting all the blog posts when called out on their figures not matching up.
So until I see a long term trend from them that is >$1m/day or I see merchants coming forward and saying they are seeing increased sales I'm going to take that figure with a grain of salt.
As for the rest. Half your stats there are increased employee and office count which come from them raising money.
The other half is an increase in merchant adoption which makes sense. Everything about bitcoins in legitimate transactions is beneficial to merchants by putting all the risk and fees on the consumer side.
Exactly. And you are doing it. You look at the weekly average (short term), while I look at the quarterly average (long term). Please understand that taking the average on longer periods of time will hide/smooth out short time spikes in a way that is statistical and purely objective (unlike your subjective interpretation of short term spikes).
In fact, the peak of number of transactions you said happened around March-April 2013 was precisely due to one of these short term spikes: a bubble where BTC went from ~$15 on January 1, 2013 to ~$260 on April 10, 2013: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg730zczsg2012-1... (people were all buying/selling/trading BTC like crazy).
You are inferring too much from BitPay's post deletion. For all we know their numbers in the immediate 2-3 months following Bitcoin Black Friday 2013 were down (Black Friday sales were great, hard to sustain). Maybe they felt a bit disappointed by them, so they took them down. So what? Their overall growth is indisputable: "BitPay processed $5k/day in May 2012, $18k/day in Sep 2012, $160k/day in March 2013, $300k/day average through 2013, and now $1.0M/day." It does not matter if they are doing $500k/day or $1M/day or $2M/day. Growth is here, which is why they got bit VC funding.
If you want to get an objective value shouldn't you remove the outliers from the data?
>So what?
So what is not that they took them down because sales slumped they took them down because they were using them to justify the types of numbers that you quote immediately following that.
>BitPay processed $5k/day in May 2012, $18k/day in Sep 2012, $160k/day in March 2013, $300k/day average through 2013, and now $1.0M/day.
These numbers. It's easy for them to pick and choose spikes in the data and report that.
> It does not matter if they are doing $500k/day or $1M/day or $2M/day
Then why do you keep going on about them doing $1m/day if you're not convinced yourself?
>Growth is here, which is why they got bit VC funding.
Definitely. In merchant adoption. VC funding could just as easily be a speculative bet that that merchant adoption will eventually convert to sales not that it already has. Beenz and Flooz got VC as well remember(the first one almost as much as all bitcoin vc so far).
Anyhow. We're circling around around to the same points and using the data to suit our own needs and arguing over a figure that doesn't really mean anything(number of transactions) since it can easily be inflated and because we can both use it to show our own views. At least we're not discussing my wallet accounts or coinbase accounts.
I'll ask again. Do you know many merchants who are seeing strong and consistent sales in bitcoins? What are they? Do they specialize in bitcoin related products?
Same reason why corporate financial reports are done on a quarterly basis. Or else there would be plenty of peaks and dips from week to week.